[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/4] iommu: add rmrr Xen command line option for extra rmrrs
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 2:30 PM > > >>> On 02.06.15 at 02:39, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx] > >> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 5:17 PM > >> >>> On 01.06.15 at 08:30, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> From: elena.ufimtseva@xxxxxxxxxx > >> >> --- a/docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown > >> >> +++ b/docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown > >> >> @@ -1185,6 +1185,19 @@ Specify the host reboot method. > >> >> 'efi' instructs Xen to reboot using the EFI reboot call (in EFI mode by > >> >> default it will use that method first). > >> >> > >> >> +### rmrr > >> >> +> '= > >> start<-end>=[s1]bdf1[,[s1]bdf2[,...]];start<-end>=[s2]bdf1[,[s2]bdf2[,...]] > >> >> + > >> >> +Define RMRRs units that are missing from ACPI table along with device > >> >> +they belong to and use them for 1:1 mapping. End addresses can be > >> omitted > >> >> +and one page will be mapped. The ranges are inclusive when start and > >> end > >> >> +are specified.If segement of the first device is not specified, segment > zero > >> >> will be used. > >> >> +If other segments are not specified, first device segment will be used. > >> >> +If segments are specified for every device and not equal, an error will > be > >> >> reported. > >> > > >> > Since you only allow devices under same segment for a given rmrr range, > >> > would it be simpler to enforce that explicitly in the format? e.g.: > >> > > >> > = start<-end>=[s1]bdf1[,bdf2[,...]]; > >> > >> While that might simplify the code, I think it's better to allow the > >> user to specify canonical device coordinates, which would include > >> a segment number. Plus ... > >> > >> > Then you don't need to verify whether segment in later bdfs is specified > and > >> > different from 1st bdf. > >> > >> ... verification could not be dropped, unless we altered parse_pci() > >> to have a way to not accept a segment number at all. > >> > > > > Is that already the case? otherwise below comment and earlier patch 3/4 is > > meaningless: > > > > + If other segments are not specified, first device segment will be used. > > That function currently allows (but doesn't require) the segment > part to be missing. Other than what we would need here it implies > segment 0 if not specified. > I see. Thanks _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |